7/27/2019 The_Bus_Accident.rtf

1/1

THE BUS ACCIDENT

The police report read th at bus numbe r 1 123 while on it s route from Ambattur to Madras on Ap ril 16, 1986,

had an accident some 30 km from Poonamalle - an ap pa re nt co ll is io n aga ins t a banyan tree. When t h e

policeman on beat a rr iv ed at th e scene around 1.30 p.m. he was unable lo locate the dr iver. The passengers-

some 35 of them- were in a state of panic. A l l of th em had got down from th e bus and many were sitting

under the shade of a nearby tree, some dis tan ce from where th e bus stood wi th it s damaged front part.Children were cry ing and th e woman passengers were screaming as they saw the policeman wa lk towards them.

The men were ta lk ing loudly, al l at the same time. Nobody was able to state clea rly what had happened or at

what ti me exac tly th e accident had tak en place. Estimates of when th e acc ident occurred varied from 35

minutes to 2 hours earlier.

Three days later, the General Manager of Pandyan Transport was s it ti ng at hi s desk looking at three different

reports in front of him. One was th e pol iceman 's report which detailed th e extent of damage to th e bus and th e

fact that dr iv er had abandoned th e bus wi thou t te l li ng th e passengers where he was going or what they should

be doing. The Regional Transport officer (RTO) who was summoned to t h e scene two hours later also filed a

report of his assessment of th e damage. He stated th at Thangavelu th e drive r, whose record indicated that he

had been a fairly safe driver for almost decades, had been involved in a couple of minor accidents in the past six

months. The first was when he h it a cyc list who fo rtu na tely sus tain ed only some minor bruises and had hi s

cycle intact, and the second when he drove into a ditch on a rainy night. Fortunately, again, there were no

serious injur ie s to anyone an d no damage to the bus. The RTO said that he had a suspicion that Thangavclu was

perhaps driv in g under th e i nf luen ce of alcohol. Actua lly, according to the RTO, Thangavclu was found by oneof the policeman ins ide a hut near the place of the accident drinking toddy at 5.30 p.m. on April 16 and from

there he was taken to the police station. The RTO felt that Thangavelus behavior was totally irresponsible in as

much as he left t he spot of the accident ( something that the rules absolutely prohibited ) and on top of th at he

was drinking right after the accident. The third report in front of the manager was the one filed by Thangavclu

himself. Thangavclu s tated th at in an effort to avoid a stray cow on the road, he swerved the bus and

accidentally h i t the tree on the side of the road on April 16. As soon as the accident happened, he wanted to

report the incident to the police and to his head office. He also wanted to seek assistance so that the passengers

could be put in another bus and his bus towed away. But he did not want to alarm the passengers and hence got

down from the bus, signaled to the passengers that he will be back, and walked in search of a nearby telephone

to connect the police and his head office. Unfortunately, even after walking four or five miles, there was no

telephone in sight, but he knew there definitely was one in the tehsildar's home a few miles away. Hence he

walked further but on reaching the place, he found the house locked. Knowing t h a t the passengers would be in

a state of frenzy, he started to walk back to the bus, but on arriving at the spot he found neither the bus, nor thepassengers. By th is time he was weary, and guessed that the police must have arrived at the spot, transported the

passengers by another bus, and towed away the damaged bus. Since he was dead tired after al l the walking and

since his hours of duty were already over, he thought he would sooth his nerves with some toddy. That was the

time when the policeman came into the hut and dragged h im away. Thangavelu said that he did not walk away

from the scene of the accident but he had acted in the best interests of his passengers. He did not want them

to panic and thought he would find a telephone w it hi n a mi le or so. He tried to be dutiful in t he only way he

knew how, an d had no oth er option but to do what he did!

Issues to Think about

1. What kind of perceptual processes were operating in the three different reports?

2. What additional information would you, as t he General Manager of Pandyan Transport, seek to

clarify your own perception of the incident?

3. What would be your next course of action? Why?4. Given the information provided in the case, how would you resolve the issue of whether or not to

fire the driver?